Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Holy shit. Some facts about the loss in Washington to label GMOs [View all]HuckleB
(35,773 posts)44. The Right to Know What I’m Eating
http://food-ethics.com/2010/09/28/the-right-to-know-what-im-eating/
"In the debate over the labelling (or non-labelling) of genetically-modified foods, one of the most common refrains is that consumers have a right to know what theyre eating. Ive commented briefly on that here before. (See Should Companies Label Genetically Modified Foods?) But its an important and complicated topic, so Im going to say a little more here.
We first need to distinguish legal from moral rights. Legal rights are established through legislation or through precedents set by courts. But when people say they have a right to know what theyre eating, theyre not usually referring to a legal right (especially given that, as far as genetic modification goes, there just is no such legal right in the U.S. or Canada). No, when people say they have a right to know what theyre eating, theyre talking about a moral right to that information they mean that it is ethically obligatory for someone to provide it to them. But simply claiming a right doesnt cause that right to spring into being. It needs to be justified some way, grounded in some strong ethical argument.
So, when does someone have a moral right to some piece of information? The philosophical literature on rights is enormous. Ill just offer here what I think is a fairly straightforward explanation of the ethical grounding of rights, without going into too much philosophical detail.
Rights are mechanisms for protecting important human interests. In free societies, for example, we have a right to security of person and a right to own property and a right to free speech, because we see these things as crucially important to living a good human life. We may have other interests or needs, but not all of them are protected by rights. Why? Well, its worth remembering that when someone has a right to something, this imposes obligations on other people. In some cases (as in the right to free speech) it means an obligation not to interfere. In other cases it means an obligation actually to provide something (for example, if Ive performed my job as promised, I have a right to be paid and my employer has a positive obligation to provide me with my wages). Its also important to note that, given that rights impose obligations on other people, we need at least to consider just how burdensome those obligations are, before we assert the correlative right with any certainty. (For example: even if you desperately need a kidney, you dont have a right to mine while Im still using it.)
..."
"In the debate over the labelling (or non-labelling) of genetically-modified foods, one of the most common refrains is that consumers have a right to know what theyre eating. Ive commented briefly on that here before. (See Should Companies Label Genetically Modified Foods?) But its an important and complicated topic, so Im going to say a little more here.
We first need to distinguish legal from moral rights. Legal rights are established through legislation or through precedents set by courts. But when people say they have a right to know what theyre eating, theyre not usually referring to a legal right (especially given that, as far as genetic modification goes, there just is no such legal right in the U.S. or Canada). No, when people say they have a right to know what theyre eating, theyre talking about a moral right to that information they mean that it is ethically obligatory for someone to provide it to them. But simply claiming a right doesnt cause that right to spring into being. It needs to be justified some way, grounded in some strong ethical argument.
So, when does someone have a moral right to some piece of information? The philosophical literature on rights is enormous. Ill just offer here what I think is a fairly straightforward explanation of the ethical grounding of rights, without going into too much philosophical detail.
Rights are mechanisms for protecting important human interests. In free societies, for example, we have a right to security of person and a right to own property and a right to free speech, because we see these things as crucially important to living a good human life. We may have other interests or needs, but not all of them are protected by rights. Why? Well, its worth remembering that when someone has a right to something, this imposes obligations on other people. In some cases (as in the right to free speech) it means an obligation not to interfere. In other cases it means an obligation actually to provide something (for example, if Ive performed my job as promised, I have a right to be paid and my employer has a positive obligation to provide me with my wages). Its also important to note that, given that rights impose obligations on other people, we need at least to consider just how burdensome those obligations are, before we assert the correlative right with any certainty. (For example: even if you desperately need a kidney, you dont have a right to mine while Im still using it.)
..."
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
85 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
One thing the consumer can do is to buy only LABELED NGMO foods if possible. nt
kelliekat44
Nov 2013
#72
I'm in Portland, Oregon and saw a lot of anti-label ads (aimed at the Vancouver, WA market)
Arugula Latte
Nov 2013
#9
Well, I think it basically is, but they were inundated with political spending from the bad side.
Arugula Latte
Nov 2013
#23
Not to mention than many democratic voters sat on their ass during this off year election.
gopiscrap
Nov 2013
#76
It makes me wonder why agribusiness is fighting so hard to be against labeling GMOs.
Vashta Nerada
Nov 2013
#18
Probably because the labeling would imply there may be something dangerous about them...
eqfan592
Nov 2013
#20
What then, do you believe is the reason agribusiness is fighting so vociferously against simple labe
LanternWaste
Nov 2013
#61
Although it wouldn't surprise me if GMO products weren't good for anyone...
Vashta Nerada
Nov 2013
#24
There have been several studies done, none of which have supported the claim...
eqfan592
Nov 2013
#29
Lawsuits, eg. "VT HOUSE DECIDES GMO LABELING LAWSUIT WORTH THE RISK" by ANDREW STEIN, MAY. 10, 2013
proverbialwisdom
Nov 2013
#65
All else being equal, you're making a bit of a leap that isn't supported by logic
Orrex
Nov 2013
#32
Much like makers of bottled water should label it as non-carbonated, non-sugared, non-colored water
LanternWaste
Nov 2013
#64
Yes-on-522 have not conceded, remain "cautiously optimistic," "liberal" King County votes uncounted.
proverbialwisdom
Nov 2013
#30
Twitter: "...Hundreds of thousands of votes to be counted. More results around 6pm Pacific today."
proverbialwisdom
Nov 2013
#47
And... they have an online disinformation campaign I'm sure. They did when CA was trying to pass it.
cui bono
Nov 2013
#71